The New York Climate Clock

Antoinette de Crombrugghe • May 15, 2025

Antoinette de Crombrugghe, MA Degree Candidate at the Columbia Climate School, reflects on New York City's Climate Clock and how cultural symbols might shape the ways we pay attention to — and act on — climate.




THE NEW YORK CLIMATE CLOCK


I belong to a generation raised in the shadow of the climate crisis. But it wasn’t something we were taught in school. It wasn’t part of our curriculum, our standardized tests, our childhood vocabulary. We came across it slowly, in fragments, through social media, activism, panic headlines, and documentaries. We educated ourselves. We connected the dots. And still, many of us are figuring out how to carry this knowledge and how to live with it without being crushed by it.


Earlier this year, I wrote an article for Weave News about the Climate Clock at New York City's Union Square. I had passed by the clock many times, always noticing the massive red digits blinking above the Square, but never quite stopping to let it all in. It was only when I considered writing about it that I gave myself permission to pause. To stand beneath it, look up, and let the weight of what it represents settle into my chest. When researching my article, the numbers read four years and 138 days. Now, as I sit down to write this reflection, we are already down to four years and 78.


The Climate Clock arrived in Union Square in 2020. Based on calculations by the Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change in Berlin, the clock indicates the time remaining before the planet reaches 1.5 °C of global warming, given current emissions trends. In 2021, a second set of numbers was added to the clock to indicate the increasing percentage of the world’s energy that comes from renewables.


To prepare my article, I visited Union Square regularly over the course of several days. I observed how people were responding to the clock and spoke with over thirty people who happened to be walking through the Square. My goal was to understand how this public installation was being received by these passersby. I was curious about climate anxiety, and I wondered whether a ticking clock could shake a passerby out of their routine and into climate consciousness.


On a bright Saturday in late February, I was back at my usual Union Square watching spot. The air was still sharp with winter, the sky clear and cold. The Greenmarket was unfolding in quiet, familiar rhythms. Union Square is an urban space that feels different depending on the season. But that day, there was a stillness to it. Vendors lined the pathways between sparse naked trees, nature reaching skyward as if trying to catch its breath amid the city’s steady hum. People stopped to admire sunflowers or rummage through old teapots. There was something tender about placing extraordinary importance on the seemingly unimportant.


And then there was the clock. A colossal chronometer, eighty feet wide, standing proud atop One Union Square South and overlooking the square as its stark digital display counted down in red, pixelated numbers. Most people didn’t look up.


A CLOCK FEW NOTICE AND FEWER UNDERSTAND


The clock is a warning of irreversible climate breakdown, yet so many just walked past. I saw a few people pause. Some asked questions. But the vast majority didn’t even notice. And those who did? Most had no idea what it was. Over and over again, this lack of engagement or understanding was what struck me most.


"Four years, 138 days left!" a young girl read out loud to her friends. "Until the world explodes, or what?" a boy retorted with a laugh. I made my way to their little cluster, their eyes fixed upward on the bold red digits. "Do you know what this clock stands for?" I asked. Four pairs of eyes turn toward me with curiosity. A New York University graduate student answered hesitantly, "Something to do with the climate crisis, I heard. But I’m not sure what exactly."


Of all the people I spoke with, only a small handful made the connection to climate change. Others offered guesses — national debt, conspiracy theories, doomsday predictions, maybe something to do with politics. A college student I met stood out. She observed longer than most, and when I explained what the clock meant, I saw something shift in her face. A moment of recognition. And with it, a quiet fear.


A CALL TO ACTION, AN ANXIOUS WARNING, SYMBOLISM: WHERE DOES THE CLOCK STAND?


I felt a mix of messages when I looked at the clock. As did the Union Square pedestrians I spoke with over several days. Knowledge of the climate crisis, when it arrives, doesn’t always bring clarity. Sometimes it brings paralysis. Some of the people I spoke with felt overwhelmed. Others laughed it off. A few dismissed it entirely. I kept wondering, can awareness alone spark change? Or does it need to be accompanied by something else such as trust, support, imagination?


I spoke with artist, writer, and curator Katie Peyton Hofstadter, the "art-fixer" behind the NYC Climate Clock. She told me she wasn’t sure how much the clock changed individual behavior, but she believed deeply in its symbolism. In a city where over 90% of the public monuments honor colonial conquests and military white men, a countdown to climate collapse will not change history but can shape the symbols that define our present. The Clock integrates climate consciousness into the cultural landscape, ensuring that the urgency of the climate crisis is a visible reminder within our daily life.


That conversation stayed with me. I had come to the story wanting to assess the clock's effect, to measure something. But maybe that is not the right lens. The Climate Clock isn’t a tool for persuasion or policy but a marker of cultural interruption.


Maybe some forms of climate work don’t live in direct outcomes, but in subtle reorientations. Maybe symbolism, when sustained and deliberate, moves more slowly but in deeper, systemic ways.


As I left Union Square one afternoon, I stopped to notice the everyday life unfolding around it. The Clock kept ticking above it all. I wondered how many others would look up.

About the Author:



Antoinette de Crombrugghe

MA Degree Candidate

Columbia Climate School


Photo:  Antoinette de Crombrugghe | The Climate Clock | New York City

 

Read perspectives from the ISSP blog

By Ioannis Ioannou, PhD June 19, 2025
London Business School Professor Ioannis Ioannou, PhD examines the vulnerable narrative infrastructure surrounding ESG. By collaboratively engaging those most affected by ESG transitions—indigenous peoples, workers, young people, small businesses, and communities, particularly in the Global South—we can foster the trust, legitimacy, and collective commitment for meaningful progress. Who Gets to Tell the Story of ESG? For more than a decade, ESG rapidly evolved from a specialized investor consideration into an elaborate global infrastructure of standards, metrics, taxonomies, and disclosure frameworks. Investor attention soared, corporate sustainability teams grew exponentially, and ESG vocabulary— climate risk, fiduciary duty, and double materiality—became firmly embedded in corporate boardrooms and regulatory discussions globally. Yet, despite ESG’s impressive institutional and technical advancements, the narrative meant to support it remained remarkably fragile. While ESG developed sophisticated standards, disclosures, and metrics, it never invested in the narrative infrastructure to explain its purpose, build public understanding, or secure legitimacy beyond institutional circles. Without the broader stakeholder engagement and effective storytelling that would connect ESG to people’s lived realities, it became vulnerable. Critics didn’t need to challenge carbon accounting or materiality frameworks; instead, they recast ESG as a job killer, an elite agenda, or an unwelcome intrusion into everyday life. The backlash caught many ESG professionals off guard, though the warning signs were visible. ESG’s rapid adoption by investors and regulatory bodies created an illusion of momentum, but this obscured a deeper structural gap. ESG rarely connected meaningfully with those directly affected by ESG-driven transitions—workers facing disruption, small business owners adapting to shifting expectations, and communities, particularly in vulnerable regions, confronting real and immediate climate risks. For these groups, ESG often seemed abstract, distant, and disconnected from their daily concerns. Narrative infrastructure might sound like an unusual concept, but it's foundational to widespread support. It connects people and institutions, conveys meaning, and determines whether ESG is seen as genuine leadership or merely corporate branding. Robust narrative infrastructure ensures resilience under political pressure; without it, initiatives can rapidly lose whatever public approval they may have had. Constructing narrative infrastructure requires explicitly recognizing storytelling— and who contributes to that storytelling—as integral to ESG strategy, not simply a communications exercise. Effective narratives generate trust precisely because they emerge from transparent dialogue, clear accountability, and inclusive stakeholder engagement. By contrast, greenwashing uses storytelling deceptively, aiming to conceal poor performance, and deflect scrutiny. Strong narrative infrastructure, unlike greenwashing, strengthens credibility and legitimacy by openly connecting ESG commitments to shared realities, tangible actions, and measurable outcomes. It is a fundamental strategic asset for ESG success. Importantly, narrative infrastructure also concerns who gets to tell these stories. Over the last decade, the central narrators of the ESG story have largely been institutional actors: executives, investors, sustainability professionals, academics, and regulators. Their contributions have been invaluable, driven by expertise, rigor, and genuine commitment. Yet these narrators also represent a relatively narrow perspective, shaped by institutional backgrounds and professional incentives. Many important voices have remained largely excluded from shaping ESG narratives: indigenous people whose lives are often fundamentally changed by corporate activities, workers whose livelihoods are directly impacted by ESG transitions, young people deeply invested in future outcomes, small businesses continuously adapting to new ESG-related requirements, and especially communities—particularly in the Global South —directly facing the worst of climate disruptions. While these stakeholders' experiences occasionally appear within ESG reporting, they seldom influenced strategy or shape decisions in a substantial way. This exclusion poses significant, practical risks. Stakeholders naturally resist initiatives perceived as imposed from above or disconnected from their lived realities—not necessarily because they oppose ESG’s goals, but because they feel unheard and invisible within such ESG narratives. The resistance appears as political backlash, active public scepticism, or disengagement, all severely undermining ESG’s legitimacy, effectiveness, and public support. Addressing this critical weakness requires deliberately building ESG’s narrative infrastructure through inclusive, collaborative, and ongoing engagement. Practically, companies should move beyond occasional or reactive consultations toward sustained processes where stakeholders actively shape strategies. This can involve establishing community advisory boards with real decision-making power, participatory scenario planning that integrates diverse local perspectives, and internal cross-functional councils that ensure workers, communities, and youth voices directly influence ESG outcomes. Such sustained, authentic collaboration bridges the gap between institutional intentions and genuine public legitimacy. Within companies, narrative stewardship should not be limited to corporate communications or sustainability departments alone. Effective ESG storytelling depends on regular, structured collaboration across multiple functions—including strategy, human resources, procurement, product development, and finance—to ensure ESG commitments align authentically with core business decisions and reflect real-world stakeholder experiences. Companies can institutionalize this collaboration by creating dedicated cross-functional ESG committees tasked with integrating diverse internal perspectives, monitoring stakeholder feedback, and ensuring ESG initiatives clearly connect to tangible social outcomes. At an institutional level, building ESG narrative infrastructure involves establishing platforms that broaden participation in ESG discourse. It requires supporting initiatives that improve public understanding of ESG standards and practices, funding research that evaluates public perceptions of ESG alongside traditional financial metrics and ensuring ESG disclosures transparently reflect diverse stakeholder concerns. ESG narrative legitimacy grows stronger when diverse perspectives genuinely shape how ESG commitments are determined and communicated, implemented, and monitored—not merely as token inclusions, but as integral, strategic components of ESG itself. Regulators have an essential role in shaping ESG narrative infrastructure. Current ESG disclosure standards typically prioritize technical accuracy and financial materiality, mostly targeting investor needs. Broadening these frameworks to explicitly incorporate public legitimacy could significantly enhance ESG’s impact. For example, regulators could introduce clear criteria assessing whether companies effectively communicate their ESG strategies to diverse stakeholders and evaluate how these communications influence brand value and reputational risk—approaches already emerging in Europe’s Green Claims Directive and the CSRD/ESRS focus on double materiality. Additionally, policy evaluations could systematically measure whether ESG initiatives are genuinely perceived as fair, inclusive, and beneficial by the communities they affect. Public support and trust require deliberate and continuous effort; they cannot be assumed or taken for granted. Fortunately, inspiring examples of effective ESG narrative infrastructure already exist. Companies like Patagonia have openly integrated supplier and worker voices into their ESG narratives, transparently highlighting labour practices and sourcing standards, significantly enhancing their credibility. Unilever’s inclusive “living wage” campaigns have similarly leveraged stories from frontline workers to connect ESG metrics with tangible social outcomes, strengthening stakeholder trust. Industry-specific initiatives, such as the Bangladesh Accord in apparel, demonstrate how authentically incorporating diverse stakeholder experiences—including employees, unions, and community representatives—into ESG reporting can reinforce accountability and legitimacy. These examples highlight how inclusive storytelling, grounded in genuine stakeholder participation, can transform ESG commitments from abstract promises into credible actions with real-world impact. ESG professionals now face an exciting strategic opportunity: intentionally building a narrative infrastructure that's genuinely inclusive, collaborative, and resilient. Yes, involving diverse stakeholders means navigating complexity, dialogue, and occasionally tough compromises. It also means embracing participatory processes that might feel messier or less predictable. But it's exactly this diversity of voices and collective authorship that generates persuasive, robust narratives—ones that not only resonate widely but can confidently withstand shifts in politics, culture, and public sentiment. Beyond strengthening ESG's narrative infrastructure, it's important for ESG professionals to step back and consider sustainability more broadly. By explicitly linking ESG narratives to overarching sustainability objectives—such as respecting planetary boundaries and enabling a just transition—professionals can better illustrate how financial markets, corporate strategies, and policy frameworks actively support broader ecological and social well-being. Making these broader connections explicit can deepen trust, enhance engagement, and ensure the interconnected ESG-sustainability story resonates meaningfully with all those whose futures depend on it. We stand at a turning point, facing a critical opportunity to strengthen ESG’s narrative foundations. While ESG’s narrative fragility has been clearly exposed, this moment also offers an inspiring chance to intentionally build a more inclusive, credible, and resilient narrative infrastructure. The future of sustainability depends not only on rigorous metrics or detailed disclosures, but ultimately on whether those whose lives are impacted recognize themselves clearly in its story. By authentically amplifying diverse voices, explicitly connecting ESG initiatives to broader sustainability goals, and developing narratives rooted in real-world experiences, we can foster the trust, legitimacy, and collective commitment necessary for meaningful and lasting progress.
PHOTO: Ana Bachurova | Pléneau Island, 65°06.6’S / 064°04.0’W
By Ana Bachurova March 20, 2025
After recent travels in Antarctica, UNEP-FI Energy Efficiency Lead Ana Bachurova, M.Sc., MBA shares learnings and insights into our current environmental realities and how practitioners in sustainable development can advance positive impacts.
PHOTO: Josh Olalde | Houston, TX | Unsplash
By Arnaud Brohé February 20, 2025
Arnaud Brohé, PhD, the founder & CEO of Agendi, signals the increasing risks of climate change in the US real estate market. If left unaddressed, these risks carry significant economic and social consequences, endangering the wellbeing of families and communities across the country.
More blog posts